Why was it important that civil service positions were not hereditary?
So officials would be well qualified
So officials would be diverse
So officials would not all know each other
So officials would be well-traveled
All of the above reasons are valid explanations for why it was important that civil service positions were not hereditary. By ensuring that civil service positions were not passed down from generation to generation within the same family, it ensured that officials would be well-qualified, as these positions would be filled by individuals who have proven their capabilities and competency through their own merits and qualifications. This would help maintain an efficient and effective government system.
Additionally, by not having hereditary positions, civil service officials would be diverse, representing different backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives. This diversity would foster innovative thinking, better decision-making, and a broader understanding of societal needs and issues.
Moreover, if civil service positions were hereditary, it could lead to a concentration of power within a specific group, fostering nepotism and favoritism, as officials would be more likely to know each other personally. By not allowing hereditary positions, it reduces the likelihood of cronyism and corruption, ensuring a fair and transparent government system.
Lastly, by not having hereditary positions, civil service officials would be more likely to have different travel experiences. This exposure to different regions, cultures, and ideas would broaden their perspectives and enhance their ability to understand and address issues from a global standpoint.
Overall, not having hereditary civil service positions promotes meritocracy, diversity, transparency, and a more globally aware governance system.